Being a proud Atheist, and a freedom loving INFIDEL AKA "KUFFAR", WE are threatened by the primitive pidgeon chested jihad boys in the medieval east.
FRACK YOU!! SAY US ALL!! Don't annoy the Pagans and Bikers,, it's a islam FREE ZONE!!! LAN ASTASLEM!!!!

If factuality would be the cover for
defence, a defamation case against the "Innocence of Muslims" film-maker
in a court of law would not stand a chance...

September of 2012 will go down in
history as a month of rioting, murder, and intimidation over a
poorly-produced 14-minute trailer about Islam’s prophet Muhammad. Over
fifty people – among them Libya-based American Ambassador Christopher
Stevens and three colleagues, the rest Muslim – were killed,
Muslim-owned businesses were torched, and numerous pundits and scholars
were forced to go into hiding. Meanwhile, Muslim nations in the U.N. and
the O.I.C., as well as many Muslim organizations, have called for
international laws to criminalize any defamation of Muhammad, the Quran,
or Islam. Fatwas and rewards have been posted calling for the
assassination of those involved in the notorious YouTube clip. Even the
bounty for the head of Salman Rushdie, who had no connection with the
film, was revived and increased.

There is scarce acknowledgement,
however, that most of the crudely-dramatized vignettes in the video were
taken directly from highly-respected hadith and biography accounts of
Muhammad (see Analysis of ‘Innocence of Muslims’ film below).
The outrage was not over the inaccuracy of the portrayals, but rather
about the exposure of the shameful side of a man, whose reputation has
been protected through extreme deference by faithful Muslims. For their
part, the producers of the clip would probably argue that uncritical
reverence for Muhammad has allowed militants to parley his violent
pronouncements into an international call-to-arms that threatens all
non-Muslim civilizations. So the question becomes, “Should respect for X prevent the public from knowing about the imminent danger of blindly respecting X?”

Consumers Union and its publication,
Consumer Reports, have provided American with a world-renown product
testing and evaluation for over sixty years. Engineers and scientists
purchase products and put them through rigorous tests to determine, if
they are safe, if they have hidden defects or hazards, and if they own
up to the manufacturers’ claims. In 1988, while testing the compact SUV
Suzuki Samurai, engineers found they could easily cause the vehicle to
tip over while navigating their standard short, “avoidance maneuver”
course. As a result, the prestigious magazine deemed the Suzuki Samurai
“Not acceptable” – the only car in history to earn such a rating. Suzuki
auto sales in the U.S. plummeted. Suzuki sued the Consumer Union for
$60 million in damages and unspecified punitive damages for what Suzuki
claimed was willfully fraudulent testing. While the suit was developing
and progressing through the courts, Suzuki rollover incidents resulted
in 213 deaths and 8,200 injuries. Suzuki’s own internal documents
confirmed that they were aware of the serious safety problem in the
vehicle’s design. In 2004, the lawsuit was dismissed with no penalties
paid by the Consumer Union. Meanwhile, Suzuki partnered with General
Motors to develop a new SUV model that met or exceeded all the national
auto safety standards. The moral of this story is that speaking up
truthfully about something that is dangerous saves lives and is to be
commended, not condemned.

Islam might be called the Suzuki Samarai
of religious ideologies. Analysis of the film trailer below will show
how everything portrayed in the movie was accurate. Therefore, any case
against the film-maker, claiming defamation of Islam and Prophet
Muhammad in the court of law, would not stand a chance like the faulty
Suzuki Samarai car case.

Analysis of the 'Innocence of Muslims' film

Was the “Innocence of the Muslims” video trailer inaccurate?

Most of us have seen “Innocence of the
Muslims”, the film trailer that sparked rioting resulting in over 50
deaths and damage of properties worth millions of dollars. Here is the
link, just in case:

Listed below are the scenes (by
time-stamp and theme) along with the references to Islamic sacred texts
that provide support for the assertions:

3:02 - Muhammad’s father is unknown. (His father died before he was born, and his mother never raised him.) Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, para. 105

3:45 - Young Muhammad taking orders from and married to older Khadija – Ishaq, para. 120

9:27 - Muhammad and Omar are “gay”.
(With nineteen wives and concubines, Muhammad had very few children and
no male heirs.) References to bizarre sexual behavior can be found in
Sahih al-Bukhari, Book 4, No. 143, Sahih al-Bukhari, No. 2393, and Sahih
Muslim, Nos. 3663 and 3674. The story about Omar apparently comes from
this Shiite cleric’s speech: http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2012/06/london-based-shiite-cleric-yasser-al.html

11:15 – An elderly woman, Umm Qirfa, is torn in two by two camels – Ishaq, para. 980

13:10 - Fight between Muhammad and two
of his wives – Hafsa and Aisha – when he is caught in bed with Hafsa’s
Coptic slave Maryah after he had promised not to sleep with her. This
is the subject of Quran Surah 66.

13:43 - “Every non-Muslim is an infidel; their land, women and children are our spoils.” – Ishaq, para. 484

Several scholars, who have studied the
origins of the Quran, have concluded that the traditional Islamic claim
of the Quran being the “verbal word of God”, transmitted to Muhammad by
Angel Gabriel, is not true. For example, the quotations enshrined on the
Dome of the Rock mosque in Jerusalem do not match the canonical texts
of the Quran. The Quran seems to be a collection of religious and
political statements from various sources that was assembled in its
final form as an Arab national religious text during the rivalry between
Caliph Abd al-Malik and Abdullah ibn As-Zubair around 685 – some 53
years after Muhammad died (See “Did Muhammad Exist?” by Robert Spencer,
pg.58). Prior to that time there is no clear reference to Muhammad as a
prophet of Islam in either Islamic or secular accounts.

Real peacemaking is the result of the
stout and unyielding defense of the values our civilization was founded
upon. We can start by defending the truth concerning the differences
between Islam and Western civilization. We can attempt to bring the
enemy to his senses (non-violently) by pointing out the errors in his
understanding of reality, because the truth is, Islam is deeply and
profoundly wrong. Pretending it is right only worsens our situation by
delaying actions that must be taken if our civilization, however
imperfect and unseemly it may be, is to be preserved. (“Allah Is Dead – Why Islam is Not a Religion,” pg. 61)

Rational people do not “respect”
something because they are legally required to show deference. True
respect is earned by the qualities that a person or ideology exhibit.
Other religious and political ideologies have had to make radical
changes in order to earn public respect. The Mormon (LDS) religion had
to abandon polygamy and discrimination against African-Americans to find
acceptance in the United States. Nazism was outlawed because there was
no way to reconcile its racist and violent ideology with Western
civilization. Despite the one billion plus followers of Islam, their
insistence on respect for their ideology must be preceded by conclusive
evidence that their sacred texts, values, and actions are worthy praise
and commendation.

No seriously, an Islamist group is planning to make its own version of “It’s a Wonderful Life”. And we’re talking about a really wonderful life here.

Egypt’s second-largest political movement, the Salafist
al-Nur party, said it will produce a movie about the life of Mohammed,
titled “what would the world look like without Mohammed.”

Imagine if “It’s a Wonderful Life” had starred Hitler and when he
tried to commit suicide, he was shown a version of a much better world
where he never existed. And then decided to commit suicide secure in the
knowledge that the world really would be better off with him dead. Now
imagine that with Mohammed Bailey.

Mohammed is never born. We arrive in a 21st Century Middle East where
all disease has been cured, flying cars travel over a blooming desert
and children of all religions happily play together in the giant
sandbox. Spaceships take off daily from Damascus and Tel Aviv spaceports
and the energy crisis has been solved with technology developed in the
11th Century Middle Eastern Renaissance.
The Library of Alexandria attracts visitors from around the world to a
center of learning that rivals anything in Constantinople or Paris.
Egypt, exporter of wheat to the world, has rows of shining wheat fields
beneath the pyramids, and every hour the bullet trains leave for the
international trading bazaars of Mecca where the stock indexes rival
Wall Street. Artificial rivers flow through the Arabian desert creating
entire oases where the old traditions of democracy and freedom were
reborn.
But unfortunately that’s not our world. In our world, Mohammed did exist.

For Muslims, a world without Mohammed would mean eternal Jahiliyyah
without a cult of rapists and murderers plundering the globe, but come
on Al-Nur, can you really imagine a world where the Middle East is a
worse place than it is now?

Is it a world where parents routinely murder their children? Where
everyone hates everyone else?

Where every Muslim country in the region
is ruled by dictators and tyrants? Where women are inferior and everyone
who isn’t a Muslim is running for their lives? Where ignorance is
common, illiteracy is everywhere and the people are eager to return to
barbaric times? Where Muslims are constantly killing each other and
everyone else?

How could the Muslim Middle East be any worse than it is now?

I think this could be a whole campaign. “Imagine the world without Mohammed.”

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow
at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.
He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in
the 21st century.

Another MUST READ FROM JIHAD WATCH!!!and NO our ADVANCED Western Civilization should NOT tolerate this fukked up religion/cult!!!!islam goes against EVERYTHING I hold DEAR in my life!!!!!

James M. Arlandson: Should the West Tolerate Islam?

Should the West Tolerate Islam?by James M. Arlandosn, Ph.D.

Thomas Jefferson
said,
“But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods,
or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my legs.”

This means
that beliefs and practices that do not harm us monetarily or physically can be
tolerated.

But at
what cost? How far do we take tolerance?

The answer
to those complicated questions is found in another Jefferson document.

The
Declaration of Independence proclaims, “We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created
equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights;
that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

But this
answer is not as simple as it first appears, for how do we apply those three
self-evident truths to an aggressive religion like Islam?

Three Universal Rights

The three
universal rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness have penetrated
our psyche whether we acknowledge them or not. By them, we can discern which
rules in shariah are harmful or harmless. So let’s unpack the three rights.

Happiness
appears at first glance to be so subjective and so open to a wide
interpretation that it is impossible to nail down. However, it is not as
subjective as it first appears. At bottom, it depends on life and liberty.

Happiness
means functioning in excellence and fullness, living to the highest potential
and freedom. If one’s life and liberty is restricted and oppressed, then one
cannot be happy, even if he thinks he is.

Pursuing
happiness means that an individual creates his own utopia, as he lives in society
and follows basic laws, like honoring contracts and respecting other people’s
property and person. The government does not create utopia for him. Government
is formed to ensure the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Government clears the path and creates a safe environment for people to be free
and have a high quality of life and pursue their own happiness, as they define
it.

Life and
liberty, though they have a subjective feel to them, are not entirely
subjective. Extreme behavior or policies do not lead to life and liberty,
whether an individual or an entire society believes this or not, and whether a
religious system teaches the opposite – they do lead to life and liberty and
happiness. Despite their belief or religious system, when an act or policy does
not actually promote life and
liberty, then a person cannot be happy by definition, because happiness is
built on life and liberty.

A person
living under oppression, religious or atheistic, cannot be free and have a high
quality of life; therefore, he cannot be happy, even if he thinks he is. He is not the best judge of what happiness is because
he does not have a broad perspective.

Examples

Specific
examples can be tricky. Sometimes we all sense people choose self-imposed
oppression and restriction (e.g. the headscarf), but this does not harm society
at large, so their choice can be tolerated. Other examples, however, are obviously
bad, because they oppress all or many in society (e.g. the second-class jizyah or submission tax), so those shariah laws
should not be tolerated.

One man
gets revelations that tell his followers how to dress, how to believe, and how
to pray. A prophet can teach these things, if he wants. He’s within his
political right of religious freedom. If people choose freely to follow them and are allowed freely to walk away from them, then the religious laws do not pick
the pockets or breaks the legs of the larger society. These religious rules can
be done in private or at the mosque (or church or synagogue).

Yet, a
strong case can be made that an extremely large number of religious laws also
restricts life and liberty excessively, and therefore they do not lead to the
pursuit of happiness. Nonetheless, these religious laws that do not harm the
larger society monetarily or physically can be tolerated.

However, if
the same revelator gets an allegedly divine message that orders him to impose,
by government decree or armed struggle, these beliefs on everyone or to restrict
and punish nonconformist beliefs, then religious freedom is not promoted, and
this harms society. His religion picks our pockets and breaks our legs.

And
certainly a religious theocracy does not create utopia for all of society, to make people conform to a theocrat’s
vision of the ideal world. A theocracy works overtime to remove all
imperfections. That is why sexual sins are turned into crimes. If corporal
punishments need to be applied, even up to execution, then so be it. Those
imperfections must be removed. But a theocracy breaks our legs and picks our
pockets.

A
small-scale example is a woman who believes that wearing a veil that covers her face, except the eye slit (either a burqa or niqab), makes her happy. That’s part of her utopia. Who are we to
interfere in her pursuit of happiness? Never mind that vitamin deficiencies can
happen from underexposure to the sun, as the article on the veil in this series
documents. Though she may not (yet) have come to the realization that a burqa or niqab is an extreme restriction on her liberty and highest quality
of life, it still is such a restriction, objectively speaking. Deception does
exist, which can be defined as believing or thinking you are right, while in
reality you are wrong. And beliefs can be wrong.

Nonetheless,
if she still freely chooses to wear a
burqa or niqab and can freely
choose not to wear it, then her belief should be tolerated.
[1] If
someone wants to persuade her with words alone, not by force or government
fiat, then he can try. But her personal liberty must be respected, after the
discussion ends.

However,
if a government passes laws that force all
women to wear certain religious clothes, then these laws are unjust, because
they violate liberty, and violated liberty does not lead to the highest quality
of life. And a degraded life does not add up to happiness – or the pursuit of
it. In such a repressive environment, individuals cannot create their personal
utopia as they define it.

Another
example of how shariah restricts life and liberty: shariah today still imposes
a submission tax on Jews or Christians or other religious
minorities who refuse to join Islam. Defenders of this policy say that it is
designed to offer them protection for the privilege of living under Islam.

However, a
second-class submission tax based on religion violates the principles laid out
in the Declaration of Independence. It does indeed harm us monetarily and
legally. Everyone should be equal before the law; no one is to be discriminated
against because he or she may be a religious minority living in an Islamic
country.

And now we
can judge that this Islamic rule about a religious submission tax is a bad one,
for it is incompatible with the progress of humanity. The tax degrades the life
and liberty of Jews and Christians and other religious minorities because they
become second-class citizens and are deprived of some of their lawful earnings
by a specialized religion tax, just for them. When their life and liberty are restricted,
they cannot pursue happiness, as they define it.

The
foundation of advanced societies is equality before the law. But Islam teaches
a religious hierarchy before its shariah tax law.

One major
reason Americans fought the Revolutionary War (1775-1783) was to free ourselves
from taxes imposed on us without our consent. Why would we consent to a
second-class religious submission tax, even if the government claims it came
from Allah himself?

In all
these examples, the general principle is Jefferson’s: if an act or policy does
not harm us monetarily or physically, then it should be allowed. But if it does
harm us in those two ways (or is on the verge of doing so), then it should not
be allowed.

Conclusion

The
shariah laws listed in Thirty Bad Shariah Laws – however culturally insensitive it may seem to hear – need to be rejected,
because they are aggressive and oppressive, not peaceful or benign. These
practices are themselves intolerant or fail to respect all humans with full
dignity.

They are
extreme and thus deny life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Therefore,
these harmful shariah laws are wrong. They (should) have expiration dates on
them – back in the seventh century.

However, we
need to be sensitive about benign customs like prayer, diet (e.g. not eating
pork), reading or carrying a holy book in public, washing properly, or wearing
a headscarf, even a burka or niqab. None of these things break our
legs or pick out pockets.

But we
must not be hypersensitive about excessive and harsh shariah rules that we can
judge by these three principles – life and liberty and the pursuit of
happiness. By those standards many of shariah rules come up short. We must pass
judgment on them.

The West is
accused of arrogance, and maybe the charge is sometimes valid. However, the
refusal to learn from the West is also a sign of arrogance. We have learned our
lesson about our three rights, after centuries of mistakes.

Until Islam
genuinely reforms on these matters and follows the ten suggestions of reform and builds up a long track record,
intellectual elites in the USA and elsewhere around the world must use extreme
caution in assuming that shariah is perfectly harmless or is just
misunderstood. They must not form any policy, write any school curriculum,
issue any ruling, or pass any law based on or referencing shariah. Islam must
bend towards us, not we to it.

The elites
must stick to or return to the Declaration’s three principles, which guides (or
should guide) the USA and has served us so well: life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness. Our civilization will stand on them.

And our
civilization will also stand by our outspoken courage to promote them, even if
they deny shariah, even if they appear
intolerant. But our civilization shall fall by our cowardly silence.

James M. Arlandson, Ph.D., has written a book: Women, Class, and Society in
Early Christianity. He has recently completed a series on The Sword in Early Christianity
and Islam. This article is taken from Towards a Reform
of Islamic Shariah Law? posted at jihadwatch.org.

[1] I am not referring to a woman wearing a veil that
covers her entire face, except for the eye slit, in situations like driving a
car or taking official photo IDs. The woman needs to compromise, because she
potentially puts larger society in jeopardy.

At last, some common sense. "Support the civilized man," by Israel Kasnett in the Jerusalem Post, September 27 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

Pamela Geller, the executive director of the The American
Freedom Defense Initiative, has it right. Her organization’s pro-Israel
posters are in 10 New York City subway stations after a federal judge
ruled that the city must put them up. The ads read: “In any war between
the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support
Israel. Defeat Jihad.”

New York’s MTA transportation agency barred the ads last year, citing
“demeaning language.” However, a Manhattan federal court judge ruled in
July that the MTA violated the First Amendment rights of AFDI, the
group behind the ads.

Geller boldly fought for freedom of expression on CNN and blamed the network for being part of the problem.

Burnett attempted to push the interpretation of “jihad” as a
“personal struggle,” implying that Geller is taking an extreme stance in
her ads. What Burnett and, likely, most CNN viewers do not get, is that
“jihad” today is used in the context of “holy war” against
non-believers. It may have been intended to be used in a more peaceful
context, but clearly Islam has changed....

Even more worrying is the West’s inability to gain a proper
perspective and understanding of radical Islamic ideology. The West
seems to believe that “most Muslims are peaceful” and, considering that
there are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, this may just be the case.
However, if just 10 percent of Muslims – 13 million people, that is –
follow radical Islam, the world is in trouble. Put simply, radical Islam
seeks to slowly take control of the world and bring it to submission.

THE LEVEL of hatred for the Western world, especially Israel, should
be of great concern for all those who believe the Muslim world is
changing for the better.In August, numerous news outlets reported on the Egyptian show in
which Arab celebrities and public figures had been invited under the
pretense that they would appear on an Arabic-speaking German network.

When the deception began, the guests were unnerved after they were
tricked into believing that the show airs on an Israeli channel.

The host fooled guests into believing she was of Jewish origin.

Some of the guests responded with anti- Israeli slurs and violence.
When Egyptian actor Ayman Kandeel believed he had been tricked into
appearing on an Israeli television network, he smacked the show’s
producer and slapped the female host, throwing her into a corner.

And Morsy thinks the world should accept this “culture”? And CNN
thinks jihadists aren’t savages? What culture maintains honor killings
as a rightful practice? What culture becomes enraged by silly depictions
of Muhammad but snores when thousands of innocent men, women and
children are actually dying? Only a twisted, savage culture would
operate in such a manner.

The world ignores wars fought between savages. Just look at Syria. Look at Africa.IT IS this savage culture that the Western world is trying to appease. And it will fail....

As Geller says, any war on innocent civilians is savagery.
The West needs to stop apologizing to the Muslim world, get behind
Israel and defeat jihad.

To mark the end of National Preparedness Month, representatives
from the American Red Cross, the Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA and
Verizon gathered on Thursday Sept. 27 to stress the importance of disaster
preparedness and to highlight the tips and technological tools available to
help people prepare for emergencies or disasters. “Disasters can strike
quickly [...]

Please take a moment to
visit and log in at the subscriber
area, and submit your city & country location. We will use this
information in future to invite you to any events that we organize in your
area.

Intervention
Won't Save Syria

The death toll in Syria has reached a threshold where outside parties are
entitled to use force to protect the civilian population. But those who would
intervene in ostensible pursuit of this noble objective have an obligation to
ensure that, on balance, the patient benefits from the procedure. Whereas
former president Bill Clinton can claim with some justification that
"the burning of villages and killing of innocents was history"
after NATO's 1999 intervention in Kosovo, achieving a positive balance sheet
in Syria will be extraordinarily difficult.
The Syrian conflict differs from other notable targets of humanitarian
intervention in three critical respects. For starters, the constituency that
has borne the brunt of appalling human-rights abuses is not an imperiled
ethno-sectarian minority (such as Iraqi Kurds or Kosovo Albanians) or the
population at large (as with Somalis in 1992). Instead, it is Syria's Sunni
Arab majority that is suffering at the hands of an oppressive minoritarian
regime.
Also in sharp contrast to major intervention precedents, this group is
already on track to win the war. With a fivefold demographic advantage over
President Bashar al-Assad's quasi-Shiite Alawite sect and growing material
support from surrounding states, the overwhelmingly Sunni rebels are sure to
eventually overpower regime forces. That's why they have zero interest in
negotiating with the Syrian president.
Finally, the situation in Syria is unique in that the main victims have a
long history of subjugating their victimizers. Syrian Alawites were deeply
impoverished, socially marginalized and politically powerless for centuries
prior to the rise of the Baath Party in the 1960s. Given the scale of regime
atrocities in the interim and the increasingly Sunni Islamist character of
the revolt, Alawites and other minorities that benefited disproportionately
from Assad's rule (or at least suffered less than their fair share) have
well-grounded fears of violent retribution when the walls come crumbling
down. The fall of Saddam Hussein's Sunni-dominated minoritarian regime led to
several hundred extrajudicial executions of former officials within a
year and a mass exodus of Christians, despite the presence of U.S.-led
coalition forces.
A humanitarian intervention must be expected to have a positive net impact
on civilian life over the entire arc of the war, which won't end with Assad's
downfall. Former regime forces are likely to regroup in areas of northwestern
Syria where minorities predominate, and Iran can resupply them by sea. The
reduction of these enclaves, as well as free Kurdish areas that have sprung
up amid the fighting, could claim more lives than the fight to bring down the
regime, and the civilians most in need of protecting will not be Sunni Arabs.
The dilemma, then, is how to prevent atrocities in Syria today without
aiding in the commission of others tomorrow. Most intervention plans under
discussion amount to direct or indirect military support for insurgents
likely to perpetrate atrocities once the tables have turned. It's impossible
to create and defend aid corridors or "safe zones" for refugees
without providing rebels with rear bases to resupply and refit, particularly
if the international community relies on neighboring Turkey to do the heavy lifting.
A no-fly zone designed to deprive all sides of offensive air power avoids
the pitfalls of aiding and abetting combatants, but enforcing one without a
UN Security Council mandate will still lead a sizable minority of the
population to see the United States as a participant in the war. This could
prolong Syria's ordeal by bolstering Assad's anti-imperialist credentials and
making it easier for Iranian-backed malcontents to mobilize opposition to the
successor regime. Taking part in a sectarian turf war decades in the making
could also compromise U.S. credibility in contending with other
multiconfessional hot spots, such as Lebanon and Iraq. Few advocates of
intervention appear to be thinking this far ahead.
There are no easy solutions to the humanitarian crisis in Syria, least of
all the Obama administration's futile pursuit of a multilateral diplomatic
initiative to end the war. The best-case scenario of such a settlement
(assuming a highly unlikely change of heart by Russia and the acquiescence of
Iran) would mean a Lebanon-style interim power-sharing formula, which might
cut down on the violence but only at the cost of stunting Syria's political
recovery. This is precisely why the rebels will never agree to it.
Absent a workable plan for saving lives or acompelling strategic rationale for intervention, the
United States should stay out of the conflict—while using all means short of
force to dissuade the participants and their regional backers from committing
egregious human-rights abuses. Once the smoke clears, Syria will need a
benefactor with clean hands to help it pick up the pieces.Gary C. Gambill is an associate fellow at the Philadelphia-based Middle
East Forum.

Related
Topics:Syria | Gary C. GambillThis
text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral
whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of
publication, and original URL.

http://muslimbrotherhoodinamerica.com/the-course/

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation and its Role in Enforcing Islamic Law

We need to get off Saudi Barbarian OIL!!!!!Support the Canadian OIL Sands,,, and visit,, Ethicaloil.org

The gravity of the existential threat we face from Islamic Jihad is truly of epic proportions. It is essentially a battle pitting free-civilized man against a totalitarian barbarian. What is at stake is the struggle for our very soul - namely who we are and what we represent. The lives that were sacrificed for individual rights and freedoms that we've come to cherish are being chiseled away from right under our noses by the stealth jihadists. And many of us are in denial and totally clueless.

The left's appeasement and pandering to evil is nothing new. What makes their utopian delusions so infuriating and unpardonable is that it is not only they who will have to pay the consequences, and deservedly, so, they are thwarting and undermining our best efforts at resistance and are thus dragging us down in the process as well.